Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Mocede28 on July 29, 2026, 05:13:31 pm
-
Sure.
This was from another case I helped with.
Once again the operator asserts that the NtK is PoFA compliant when it is not.
In order to be compliant the NtK must contain specific text and legal choices as specified by Schedule 4 of PoFA.
In this instance, the requirements of Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e) are not satisfied by the operators NtK.
To be compliant, the requirements of 9(2)(e) can only be met if a specific paragraph is placed in the NtK which should read as follows;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the current time, Euro Car Parks (the creditor) does not know both the name and a current address for service for the driver.
The keeper is therefore INVITED TO PAY THE UNPAID PARKING CHARGES (Para 9(2)(e)(i) requirement but not present on the Euro Car Parks NtK)
Or
If the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass this notice onto the driver (Para 9(2)(e)(ii) requirement)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The required paragraph is clearly missing from the operators NtK.
The information must be presented in this manner to be compliant ie in one paragraph. Compliance cannot be achieved by, for example, placing the information at random points throughout the NtK since this would not present the keeper with the legal choice which 9(2)(e) requires.
The Euro Car Parks NtK never states the mandatory wording required by para. 9(2)(e).
The Euro Car Parks NtK never 'invites the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges'.
The Euro Car Parks NtK never presents the two legged legal choice which para. 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) requires.
If the required mandatory wording and subsequent legal choice is present on the NtK then, I would ask that either Euro Car Parks or the POPLA assessor point out the required statutory wording?
In order to rely on PoFA, all requirements of Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2) must be met - the wording is not subjective, it is 100% objective in nature.
-
InterCity125 can you please clarify exact pofa defect so I can insert into appeal to popla ?
-
Any suggestions please, anyone ?
-
Proposed POPLA Appeal – for review before submission
Thanks InterCity125.
I have looked further into the CMA point. I understand that the CMA will not intervene to cancel an individual PCN and that I still need to follow the normal POPLA process. I also appreciate the point about referring to the current CMA investigation when addressing the quality of ECP’s appeal consideration, rather than treating the CMA investigation itself as a ground for cancellation.
More importantly, you have mentioned that the Notice to Keeper is not POFA compliant and therefore keeper liability cannot arise.
Before I submit anything to POPLA, I would appreciate confirmation of the precise POFA defect you have identified so that I can plead that accurately.
Subject to that point being clarified, below is essentially the full argument I currently intend to put to POPLA. I would appreciate anyone’s views on anything that should be added, removed or corrected.
POPLA APPEAL
I appeal this Parking Charge Notice as the registered keeper.
I ask that the appeal be allowed on the following grounds:
1. Euro Car Parks has not established keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
2. Euro Car Parks has not demonstrated compliance with section 3.4 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice concerning a material change to the previous parking arrangements.
3. The changed parking arrangements were not communicated with sufficient prominence when viewed from the actual driver’s approach.
4. Euro Car Parks has not demonstrated the necessary landowner authority.
5. Euro Car Parks’ rejection did not substantively address the principal grounds and evidence contained in the original appeal.
1. No keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
The appeal is brought by the registered keeper.
The driver has not been identified.
Euro Car Parks expressly states in its rejection that it seeks to rely upon Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to recover the parking charge from the keeper.
Accordingly, Euro Car Parks must demonstrate strict compliance with the applicable requirements of Schedule 4 before liability can be transferred from an unidentified driver to the keeper.
[INSERT PRECISE POFA DEFECT IDENTIFIED ON THE NOTICE TO KEEPER.]
In the absence of compliance with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4, liability cannot be transferred to the registered keeper.
I therefore ask POPLA to allow the appeal on this ground alone.
2. Material change – section 3.4 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice
Euro Car Parks identifies itself as a BPA Approved Operator on its correspondence.
Section 3.4 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice deals specifically with material changes to pre-existing parking terms.
It provides that where there is a material change to pre-existing terms and conditions which would not be immediately apparent to a driver entering controlled land that is or has been open for public parking, the operator must place additional temporary notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than four months from the date of the change, making clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, so that regular visitors familiar with the previous terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges.
The accompanying guidance specifically identifies the introduction of parking enforcement where none previously applied as an example of a material change.
This provision is particularly relevant to this site.
The parking associated with Cardiff International Pool had historically been free and the driver was familiar with those longstanding arrangements.
Following receipt of the Notice to Keeper, enquiries were made with Cardiff International Pool concerning the unexpected change. The pool advised that the car park had been sold to a private owner around April 2026.
The parking event occurred on 19 July 2026.
On the information presently available, the parking event therefore occurred approximately three months after the reported change and appears to fall within the minimum four-month period specified by section 3.4.
Euro Car Parks is therefore put to strict proof of:
1. The precise date upon which the new parking regime commenced.
2. The date upon which the additional temporary notices required by section 3.4 were installed.
3. Contemporaneous dated photographs demonstrating exactly what additional material-change notices were present on the date of the parking event.
4. The location, size and positioning of those additional notices.
5. A contemporaneous site/signage plan showing the relevant notices.
6. Evidence demonstrating that the additional notices remained in place for the minimum four-month period required by section 3.4.
3. Inadequate prominence of the material-change notice
I do not contend that there was no signage whatsoever at the entrance.
There is ordinary Euro Car Parks entrance signage and beneath that signage is a comparatively small yellow panel stating:
“New parking rules in operation.”
This appears to be the additional notice upon which Euro Car Parks may seek to rely for the purposes of section 3.4.
The existence of a notice, however, does not by itself determine whether the material change was adequately communicated when considered in its actual setting.
Photographic evidence is provided showing the approach to the car park sequentially from a driver’s perspective.
There is no conspicuous advance changed-terms notification on the approach.
The vehicle approaches the nearby roundabout, takes the relevant exit and, within a short distance, reaches the turn into the car park.
At the entrance, the Euro Car Parks signage is positioned to the side of the direction of travel. The yellow “New parking rules in operation” panel is positioned beneath the ordinary entrance signage and is considerably less prominent.
The photographs demonstrate the signage as it would actually be encountered by an approaching motorist, rather than through close-up photographs taken directly in front of individual signs.
This distinction is particularly important in the context of section 3.4, whose purpose is specifically to prevent regular visitors familiar with previous parking arrangements from inadvertently incurring parking charges following a material change.
The Code also requires signage to be visible, legible and unambiguous to drivers and requires the size and positioning of entrance signage to take account of the expected speed and direction of vehicles approaching the entrance.
The issue is therefore not whether Euro Car Parks can produce a close-up photograph demonstrating that words existed on a sign.
The issue is whether the material change was communicated with sufficient prominence to an approaching motorist, particularly one familiar with the previous longstanding free-parking arrangements.
4. The driver’s route after parking
The location at which the vehicle was parked is also relevant when considering whether the changed parking arrangements were subsequently brought to the driver’s attention.
The vehicle was parked close to the trees and pedestrian access/walkway at the edge of the car park, as demonstrated in the photographic evidence.
After parking, the driver left through that pedestrian access rather than walking back towards or through the vehicle entrance.
The driver subsequently returned to the vehicle using the same pedestrian route.
The driver therefore did not subsequently pass the vehicle entrance signage on foot.
This is relevant to the practical opportunity available for the recently changed parking arrangements to be brought to the driver’s attention.
5. Landowner authority
Euro Car Parks is put to strict proof that it possessed the necessary written landowner authority to operate this site and issue parking charges on the date of the parking event.
This is particularly relevant given the relatively recent reported change in ownership/management of the car park.
I request that Euro Car Parks demonstrate that its authority covered:
* the relevant land and its boundaries;
* the period including the date of this parking event;
* the applicable parking terms and tariff; and
* authority to issue and pursue parking charges.
A generic witness statement or evidence that does not establish the extent and duration of the operator’s authority should not be treated as sufficient evidence of authority for this particular site and parking event.
6. Euro Car Parks did not substantively address the original appeal
The original appeal expressly raised the recent change in parking arrangements and the prominence and adequacy of the signage.
Euro Car Parks’ rejection does not substantively determine those issues.
Instead, the rejection states that the site is operated using ANPR, that it is a Pay by Mobile car park, that charges apply 24 hours a day and that no Pay by Mobile transaction could be identified for the vehicle.
Those matters establish Euro Car Parks’ position that no payment was recorded.
They do not establish that the newly introduced parking terms were adequately communicated following a material change.
Nor does the rejection explain:
* when the new parking regime commenced;
* whether the parking event occurred within the section 3.4 four-month period;
* when the additional temporary notices were installed;
* what additional material-change notices were in place on the date of the event; or
* how Euro Car Parks considers those notices complied with section 3.4.
The original appeal therefore does not appear to have received a substantive response to its central ground.
Conclusion
This appeal is not based simply upon an assertion that the driver did not notice a parking sign.
There are separate substantive issues for POPLA to determine.
First, Euro Car Parks seeks to pursue the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. If its Notice to Keeper does not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4, keeper liability does not arise.
Second, this site underwent a relatively recent and material change from longstanding free parking to privately controlled paid parking.
Section 3.4 specifically addresses such circumstances and requires additional temporary entrance notices for at least four months so that regular visitors familiar with previous arrangements do not inadvertently incur parking charges.
The parking event occurred approximately three months after the reported change.
The photographic evidence demonstrates the actual approach to the site, the absence of conspicuous advance changed-terms notification and the limited prominence of the yellow “New parking rules in operation” notice when viewed in its actual context.
Euro Car Parks should therefore be required to demonstrate both compliance with Schedule 4 for keeper liability and compliance with the applicable Code requirements concerning the material change.
For the reasons above, I respectfully request that the appeal be allowed and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled.
That is the POPLA appeal I am presently considering.
The obvious outstanding issue is completing Ground 1 with the exact POFA defect InterCity125 has identified.
I’d appreciate any comments or corrections before I decide whether to proceed to POPLA.
-
The CMA won't get this cancelled and you'll still need to go through the POPLA process but we can highlight the fact that, as per the CMA open letter, ECP are not assessing appeals in a professional or credible manner.
The notice is not POFA complaint either so keeper liability cannot occur.
-
Didn’t think of contacting CMA. I’ll get onto them now regarding this.
Thanks intercity125 that’s a good call worth looking into to.
-
This is EXACTLY the type of appeal response which the CMA are highlighting in their open letter.
You should submit your situation to the CMA in order to add the pile of evidence which they have against ECP.
-
I have a response from ECP today pdf link attached below.
https://ibb.co/Fk1z8T9n
My initial appeal pdf link below.
https://ibb.co/sJHkjp1Y
What are your thoughts please?
-
Dear Euro Car Parks
Re: Notice to Keeper: [NTK NUMBER]
Vehicle Registration: [REGISTRATION NUMBER]
Location: Cardiff International Pool Car Park, Empire Way
Date of Parking Event: 19 July 2026
I am appealing this Notice to Keeper as the registered keeper of the vehicle.
This appeal concerns the adequacy and prominence of the signage communicating a significant and relatively recent change to the longstanding parking arrangements at Cardiff International Pool.
The driver was familiar with Cardiff International Pool and with the longstanding previous arrangement whereby parking associated with the facility was free. The subsequent introduction of a privately managed paid-parking regime therefore represented a material change to the parking arrangements with which a returning user of the facility would have been familiar.
After receiving the Notice to Keeper, I made enquiries regarding the change in parking arrangements. I contacted Cardiff International Pool and was informed that the car park had been sold to a private owner around April 2026. This would place the change only approximately three months before the parking event on 19 July 2026.
I subsequently revisited the location and obtained photographs showing the approach to the car park and its entrance from a driver’s perspective. These photographs were taken after the parking event and are attached to this appeal to demonstrate the positioning and prominence of the signage as encountered when approaching the site.
For the avoidance of doubt, this appeal does not assert that there was no signage whatsoever at the entrance. The issue is whether the significant and relatively recent change from the longstanding free-parking arrangements was brought sufficiently prominently to the attention of a returning motorist.
The attached photographs show the route towards the car park. There is no conspicuous advance signage on the approach specifically alerting motorists that the longstanding parking arrangements have changed or that new paid-parking terms are now in operation.
The relevant parking signage becomes apparent at the entrance itself. Although signage is present there, it is positioned to the side of the driver’s direction of travel. In particular, the yellow notice specifically stating “New parking rules in operation” is comparatively small, positioned beneath the other signage and does not stand out prominently to a motorist approaching and negotiating the turn into the car park.
The fact that a notice stating “New parking rules in operation” was considered necessary is itself consistent with there having been a material change to the established parking arrangements. The question is whether that change was given sufficient prominence to bring the new terms adequately to the attention of motorists who were familiar with the previous arrangements.
The vehicle’s parking position and the pedestrian route taken are also relevant to the practical visibility of the entrance signage. As identified in the attached photograph, the vehicle was parked close to the trees and pedestrian access/walkway at the edge of the car park. After parking, the driver left the car park through that pedestrian access rather than returning towards the vehicle entrance. The driver subsequently returned to the vehicle by the same pedestrian route. The driver therefore did not pass the vehicle entrance signage again on foot after parking.
This appeal is therefore not based simply upon whether Euro Car Parks can demonstrate that signs physically existed somewhere at the site. The issue is whether a material and relatively recent change from longstanding free parking to a privately managed paid-parking regime was communicated with sufficient prominence to bring the new terms adequately to the attention of a returning motorist.
The attached photographs have deliberately been taken from the approach and driver’s perspective so that the signage can be considered in its actual context, including the absence of conspicuous advance warning, the positioning of the entrance signage, the comparatively small notice concerning the new parking rules, and the location at which the vehicle was parked.
In those circumstances, I respectfully request that Euro Car Parks cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
If Euro Car Parks rejects this appeal, please provide a detailed response addressing the signage and change-of-terms issue raised above, together with the appropriate POPLA verification code, so that the registered keeper may refer the matter for independent consideration.
Yours faithfully
Registered Keeper
Going back to the photos I circled where the vehicle was parked and driver walked out and returned to the vehicle.
Photo attached:
https://ibb.co/CS9f9mJ
-
Sorry intercity125 that dislike button was an accident, meant to hit the like button. Apologies it won’t let me change it now.
-
Edit message option not showing? Maybe timed out.
Thanks for pointing that out intercity. I got carried away into the perspective of the driver.
Proceed with this as keeper or previous template better or any advice please anyone?
07/08/26 marks 14 days.
-
STOP!
That appeal reveals the driver??
Never reveal the driver.
Your appeal is made as keeper.
-
Whilst I’m trying to make sure their signage was correctly applied as mentioned in the earlier template
“Because of the long-standing history of free council parking, there is a legal expectation for prominent, highly visible "changed terms" signage at the entrance and throughout the site to alert historic users. The current signage is insufficient to alter the established patterns of legitimate pool visitors, and no adequate warning or consideration period was provided to the motorist.”
The drivers actual experience was different in reality as mentioned the phone was unexpectedly stuck on Apple logo making it completely unusable. However as this is a genuine mitigating circumstance worth putting forward can anyone advise whether a soft approach is worth chancing as below.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to appeal the Parking Charge Notice issued in relation to vehicle xxxxxxx
I would like to explain that I had every intention of paying for my parking. On arriving at the car park, I attempted to make payment using my iPhone. Unfortunately, at that moment my phone suffered an unexpected fault and became stuck on the Apple logo. It was completely unresponsive, meaning I was unable to unlock it, use Apple Pay, make calls, or access any apps.
As I did not have my physical bank cards with me, I had no alternative method of payment available. When I returned to my vehicle, I tried again, but my phone was still frozen and unusable.
I appreciate that the fault was with my phone rather than your payment system. However, I hope you will accept that this was a genuine and unforeseen technical issue, not an attempt to avoid paying for parking. Had my phone been functioning normally, I would have paid the parking charge without hesitation.
I respectfully ask that you exercise your discretion and cancel this Parking Charge Notice. If cancellation is not possible, I would be grateful if you would consider accepting payment of the original parking tariff instead.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my appeal. I hope you will view these circumstances sympathetically, and I look forward to your response.
Yours faithfully,
-
Thanks all I appreciate the input.
At the moment it’s a win win to begin as a representation is the first step. After that most likely a rejection and this is where the dreadful decision would need to be made, if patience then serves the hope of going all the way to court then that’s what it will be.
Intercity125 Wouldn’t the temp signage fall under 3.4 of material changes ?
That’s the problem tincombe we don’t really know but maybe ecp being on cma’s radar bluff in my template could help. (Not confident about that to be honest)
Any suggestions for best points in representation ?
-
I've recently had some success at POPLA with non compliant POFA - its about the way you word the appeal.
If it goes to Court (which it won't because DCB Legal always discontinue) then I can pretty much guarantee that it can be defended on the basis of non-compliance.
I have yet to see a Court case where a Judge had not enforced total compliance in terms of 8(2) or 9(2).
In the meantime I would also check the exact requirements from the Code of Practice in terms of temp signage - is one sign at the entrance sufficient?
-
The last of the useful preceding photos scuppers any 'material changes' argument IMO because it shows Pay on Arrival and 'New Rules Apply', both directing motorists to look inside the car park for further instructions. And this is in August. The contravention was middle of July.
Where's any evidence that these signs were erected shortly before the contravention and long after April?
IMO, +1 to 'When they ain’t POFA compliant it’s becomes a real long shot as POPLA will just side with the operator and your only chance is in court and even that is not guranteed but most likely in your favour. So really it depends how far you want to take it I guess.'
-
It’s not council owned as it was sold to private buyer in April.
When they ain’t POFA compliant it’s becomes a real long shot as POPLA will just side with the operator and your only chance is in court and even that is not guranteed but most likely in your favour. So really it depends how far you want to take it I guess.
I have uploaded some photos as you approach roundabout take first left then first right to enter the car park. I think the signage is political not so noticeable or clear early notices of change of land owner and jfollows 3.4 material changes is a good call I think.
https://ibb.co/8nBbSsLH
https://ibb.co/pBqqF3yY
https://ibb.co/jvW9rPRr
https://ibb.co/b5bVPhvL
https://ibb.co/4gtGwPLn
https://ibb.co/39nBnVQL
-
If it is still a Council owned car park then it may not be relevant land hence no POFA available to the operator.
ECP notices are not POFA complaint anyway.
-
https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/Sector%20Code%20Templates/sectorsingleCodeofPracticeVersion1.1130426-2.pdf may be useful, 3.4 covers “material changes”.
-
Dear Euro Car Parks
Re: Notice To Keeper: NTK number Vehicle Registration: Reg Number
I am appealing this Notice To Keeper as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle.
The vehicle was parked at the Cardiff International Pool car park (Empire Way). For many years, this site operated as a free council-run facility for gym and pool users. The transition to a private pay-and-display system managed by Euro Car Parks is a recent change.
Because of the long-standing history of free council parking, there is a legal expectation for prominent, highly visible "changed terms" signage at the entrance and throughout the site to alert historic users. The current signage is insufficient to alter the established patterns of legitimate pool visitors, and no adequate warning or consideration period was provided to the motorist.
Furthermore, I note that Euro Car Parks has recently been heavily penalised and investigated by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) specifically regarding unfair practices, poor signage, and flawed appeals systems.
Please cancel this notice immediately. If you reject this appeal, please provide the appropriate POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) code so that I may escalate this matter independently
Yours faithfully,
How is this template?
Recent transition from council was in April 2026
-
Not the ECP system, I was referring to drivers phone. When they got it out of from their pocket it was stuck on the Apple logo.
Driver is now using a new phone.
I don’t have the signage photos, I guess I can go on google maps and see what’s on there if any at all?
-
Can you post up signage but are you saying for clarification that the driver tried to pay but the system froze and they did not try another machine nearby if there was one. If you can answer this it would give us something to work on.
-
Hi all
Driver parked with full intentions of paying, so bizarre the phone operating system was stuck on Apple logo and wouldn’t function at all. Driver unable to pay or call or take pics of the situation.
NTK received in post today as attached.
Please advise.
Thanks
https://ibb.co/pvK2fqXd
https://ibb.co/R4s7mW0D